Opinion
3:23-cv-05014-JHC-JRC
01-10-2023
JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR, Petitioner, v. STATE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON, Respondent.
NOTED FOR: January 27, 2023
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the Court on referral from the district court and on petitioner's proposed petition for a writ of mandamus. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court recommends this matter be administratively closed for two reasons. First, an Order of this Court provides for the return without filing of any petition by petitioner that seeks an extraordinary writ pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2253, or 2254, unless accompanied by the filing fee. See Demos v. Stanley, MC97-0031-JLW (W.D. Wash. Mar. 13, 1997). Petitioner did not pay the filing fee.
Second, petitioner seeks a writ of mandate from this Court compelling the Washington State Supreme Court “to do their duty” by accepting his filings. Dkt. 1 at 3. However, as explained to petitioner more than 30 years ago, this Court “lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.” Demos v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (district court has jurisdiction over mandamus action only to compel officers of the United States to perform their duties). Thus, the petition is frivolous.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that this matter be administratively closed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on January 27, 2023, as noted in the caption.